Ad Infinitum?
Presidential Campaigning in the Age of Television
by Mickey Z.www.dissidentvoice.org
July 17, 2004

"Democracy is a form
of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for
appointment by the corrupt few."

-- George Bernard Shaw

Knee-deep
in another presidential election circus, everyone has an opinion. Families
are divided, friendships split, and boatloads of good energy is wasted in
the futile attempt to differentiate between corporate candidates (this time,
it's two warmongering Yale grads). In fact, if one were to judge by campaign
television commercials, the two parties have barely even tried to disguise
their formulaic approach to control for over five decades.

Dwight D. Eisenhower,
the man who "brought us to the triumph and peace of V-E Day," declared in a
1952 ad: "The (Truman) Administration has spent many billions of dollars for
national defense. Yet today we haven't enough tanks for the fighting in
Korea. It is time for a change." Exchange "Korea" for any number of earthly
venues and well, you get the idea. For more than 50 years, it seems, the
goal is to keep the peace by creating more and more ways to implement war.

Richard Nixon in 1960:
"We will keep America the strongest nation in the world. And we will couple
that strength with firm diplomacy-no apologies, no regrets. Always willing
to negotiate for peace, but never conceding anything without getting a
concession in return."

An ad for Gerald Ford
in 1976: "We're at peace with the world and at peace with ourselves. America
is smiling again. And a great many people believe that the leadership of
this steady, dependable man can keep America happy and secure. We know we
can depend on him to make peace his highest priority. Peace with freedom. Is
there anything more important than that?"

Both Ronnie Raygun and
Jimmy Carter got into it in 1980.

Carter: "My number one
responsibility is to defend this country, to maintain its security. And I
put a strong defense at the top of my priority list, and it's going to be
maintained this way."

Raygun: "Peace is made
by the fact of strength-economic, military, and strategic. Peace is lost
when such strength disappears, or, just as bad, is seen by an adversary as
disappearing."

In fact, Raygun took
it upon himself to promote the more weapons/less war premise for Barry
Goldwater in 1964: "I asked to speak to you because I'm mad. I've known
Barry Goldwater for a long time. And when I hear people say he's impulsive
and such nonsense, I boil over. Believe me, if it weren't for Barry keeping
those boys in Washington on their toes, do you honestly think our national
defense would be as strong as it is? And remember, when Barry talks about
the way to keep the peace, when he says that only the strong can remain
free, he knows what he's talking about. And I know the wonderful Goldwater
family. Do you honestly believe that Barry wants his sons and daughters
involved in a war? Do you think he wants his wife to be a wartime mother? Of
course not. So join me, won't you? Let's get a real leader and not a power
politician in the White House. Vote for Barry Goldwater."

According to the rules
of this game, there's nothing worse than being "soft" on defense. Bush the
Elder used this tactic against his opponent in 1988: "Michael Dukakis has
opposed virtually every defense system we developed. He opposed new aircraft
carriers. He opposed anti-satellite weapons. He opposed four missile
systems, including the Pershing II missile deployment. Dukakis opposed the
stealth bomber, a ground emergency warning system against nuclear testing.
He even criticized our rescue mission to Grenada and our strike on Libya.
And now he wants to be our commander in chief. America can't afford that
risk.

Dukakis promptly got
on board, trying to remove all doubt that he wasn't as war-loving as the
next man "I'm on the record for the very weapons systems his ads say I'm
against. I want to build a strong defense."

Bush the Lesser is
employing similar tactics this year: "As our troops defend America in the
War on Terror, they must have what it takes to win. Yet John Kerry has
repeatedly opposed weapons vital to winning the War on Terror."

John Forbes Kerry
(JFK2, for those scoring at home) set the record straight: "Let me tell you
exactly what I would do to change the situation in Iraq. I would immediately
reach out to the international community in sharing the burden, the risk,
because they also have a stake in the outcome of what is happening in Iraq.
The American taxpayer is paying now almost 200 billion dollars and who knows
how many more billons... And we're paying the highest price in the loss of
the lives of our young soldiers--almost alone."

Bill Clinton and
Hubert Humphrey avoided the soft tag by cleverly attacking the Republicans
from the right. In 1968, HH wondered: "Do you want Castro to have the bomb
now? Do you want any country that doesn't have the bomb to be able to get
it? Of course you don't."

Best-selling Bubba, in
1996, called Bob Dole "desperate and wrong" in an ad that laid out Clinton's
repressive tendencies on the domestic front: "President Clinton doubled
border agents, a thousand more for California. Signed a tough anti-illegal
immigration law protecting US workers. And 160 thousand illegal immigrants
and criminals deported, a record. Bob Dole voted against reimbursing
California for jailing illegal immigrants. Time Magazine says his risky tax
scheme could cut 2,000 border agents, cut 4,000 FBI. Bob Dole. Wrong in the
past. Wrong for our future."

See if you can figure
out who is responsible for this generic gem: "The question before us all,
that faces all Republicans and all Democrats, is: can freedom in the next
generation conquer, or are the [INSERT VILLAIN HERE] going to be successful?
That's the great issue. And if we meet our responsibilities, I think freedom
will conquer. If we fail, if we fail to move ahead, if we fail to develop
sufficient military and economic and social strength here in this country,
then I think that the tide could begin to run against us. And I don't want
historians ten years from now to say these were the years when the tide ran
out for the United States. I want them to say these were the years when the
tide came in. These were the years when the United States started to move
again."

Answer: It was JFK the
First and, of course, the villains he referred to were communists.

To borrow from Zach de
la Rocha, formerly of Rage Against the Machine: "The structure is set;
you'll never change it with a ballot pull."